The Hard Problem of Gravity

[cyborg]

Then please explain in what sense a computer executing a program "understands" what it is doing.

In what sense does a neuron firing "understand" what it is doing?

First you should probably know what you mean by "understand".

 

[six7s]

Funny how you categorize yourself with the former and not the latter.

Sad how you persist in posting inane assumptions

 

[PixyMisa]

One, because, as the saying goes "when your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail". PixyMisa seems to be capable of relating to the world only in terms of computer logic. He apparently feels very comfortable with this state of affairs and can't [or wont] see any compelling reason to change it.

Computers are thinking machines, and being machines, we can easily inspect their internal state while they think. This gives us amazing insight into how thinking actually happens, as opposed to the confused and subjective guesswork that's been "philosophy of the mind" for all of prior recorded history.

Against this, all you have is a dogged insistance that human consciousness is special. Special, dammit!

No evidence. You just know that it's so because you know that it's so.

Two, because he finds the thought that there could be anything that cannot be expressed in such terms very disconcerting -- perhaps even downright terrifying.

Yeah. Like what?

Notice how he goes to great lengths to be obtuse on precisely the points that would render his entire world view invalid.

Are these the points on which you are flat-out wrong, or are these new points that you haven't raised yet?

If he were to ever allow himself to consider what is really meant by consciousness he'd be forced to face the fact that there are things in the world that he doesn't have an absolute grasp of.

Since you are unable to pick a definition and stick to it, it's impossible for me to know what you "really mean" by consciousness.

And since you have completely failed to come up with anything humans attribute to consciousness that is not covered by my explanation, there is no reason for me to consider any alternative explanation, even if a coherent alternative were to be offered, which, thus far, hasn't been the case.

Hes not as slow as he putting on; hes willfully and deliberately stonewalling. I guarantee you won't get anywhere in this discussion with him

Mercutio, Darat, Rocketdodger, and many others in this thread understand what I'm talking about. Beth and Westprog also connect, though not on every point. I suggest the problem is not with me.

Read Hofstadter. He effectively and entertainingly cuts through the smokescreen of the immaterialist philosophers and arrives at the essential meaning of what we call consciousness, and how it works, and how we know this. Dennett too, but I think Hofstadter is a better starting place.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, you don't

Yes I do.

Ahhh... so, you're making an argument from incredulity

No, I'm asking the question with complete sincerity. What else can it be?

If you actually have an answer - a coherent answer, one that does not rely on metaphysical dualism or simply contradict the laws of physics - then tell me. There are a bunch of people on this thread who would be fascinated to hear this.

No

The brain is a brain

I do not deny that the brain is a brain, but this definition is not terribly helpful.

So, please, in what sense is the brain not a computer?

No, it does not make consciousness a computer program

Yes, it does.

For you to argue that it does simply illustrates that you don't understand programming and/or consciousness - no big deal... very few understand the former... maybe no-one really understands the latter, yet

So, please point out some specific aspect of programming, or of consciousness, that my statements in this thread indicate I fail to understand.

If you want to get an idea of why/how I differentiate consciousness from a program, read up on Systems Analysis

Sorry, not with you. Please explain.

If you want to define consciousness and the product of a program rather than as the program itself, then that is a definition I am willing to entertain.

If you mean something else, then it is up to you to to say what you mean. I can't do that for you, I'm afraid.

For some reason, I suspect you know this already

Perhaps I do. As soon as you actually, clearly, say what you mean, we'll know, won't we?

What I don't understand is why you want/need to blur the two to the point of inanity

I don't. It's just that consciousness is a computer program.

 

[Apathia]

Read Hofstadter. He effectively and entertainingly cuts through the smokescreen of the immaterialist philosophers and arrives at the essential meaning of what we call consciousness, and how it works, and how we know this. Dennett too, but I think Hofstadter is a better starting place.

Have you read his I Am A Strange Loop?
Best so far for clarity in his prsentation of the root of how our marvelous mirage of self-awareness arises.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Dammit, I meant to address one more thing. You (Aku) had bolded something (in the wiki article) about behaviorism's focus on whole organisms without reliance on brain stuff or fictional (mental) stuff. Just to clarify... that defines our subject area. Do biologists deny chemistry? No, but it is not their subject. We do not deny neurology; there are problems better addressed at the level of the whole organism. (consciousness may be addressed at both levels; on this forum, people routinely reject the whole organism level and focus on the brain only. Doing so is not helpful, IMHO.) We do deny explanatory fictions, but then so should any skeptic who understands circular reasoning.

Okay, so behaviorism is just a specialized area of focus; it does not declare that focus to be all there is. Is that about accurate?

BTW, the explanations and links you've provided so far have been very helpful but I do have one quibble.

You've mentioned before that you consider the 'mind' to be a 'fiction'. Does this mean that you view the 'mind' as non-existent as a real entity, or just not relevant to your field?

By my reckoning, what we call the 'mind' actually refers to a real entity. Its current status is comparable to the status of genes in Darwin's day; we don't know much about it other than that its existence can be inferred.

The purpose of all the speculation I've been doing is to try and guess at what the physical nature of this inferred entity called the 'mind' might be. I suspect that once we figure out the exact physical nature of the 'mind' we will then have a solid basis for understanding another inferred concept: Dawkin's memes.

Granted, all the speculating I've been doing isn't really science, in the strict sense of the word, since its about 80% [so I a made up a number -- sue me! ] inductive postulation. At the same time, I wouldn't deem what I've been doing strictly philosophy either, since a decent portion of my argumentation is based off of actual scientific findings.

A good portion of my circle of friends, IRL, are scientifically literate and they sometimes joke about my eccentric musings.

Friend 1: "Most of what Adam" [a friend of ours] "likes to talk about is definitely pseudoscience. What do we call all the crap Kimani" [that's me] "likes to rant about?"

Friend 2: "I dunno. I mean its kinda plausible..."

Friend 1: "Lets just call it 'super-science!'"

Friend 1 & 2: *LOL*

I'm not so sure I would call what I like to do 'super-science'. Lets just go w/ 'meta-science'.

 

[PixyMisa]

Have you read his I Am A Strange Loop?
Best so far for clarity in his prsentation of the root of how our marvelous mirage of self-awareness arises.

Not yet, but I mean to get it.

Maybe I'll toddle over to the local Borders this afternoon.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I thought this was a discussion on gravity

 

[PixyMisa]

No, it's a discussion on gravity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oh..... my bad then

 

[six7s]

It's just that consciousness is a computer program.

And you're stuck in an endless loop

Bye!

 

[Apathia]

Not yet, but I mean to get it.

Maybe I'll toddle over to the local Borders this afternoon.

It's great!
It now sits on my shelf next to Godel, Escher, Bach and Metamagical Themas.

Of course I'm naturally going to praise an author whose views I find very enlightening, but he clearly cuts through a lot of the kind of muddle that gets stirred up in these forum discussions.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Computers are thinking machines, and being machines, we can easily inspect their internal state while they think. This gives us amazing insight into how thinking actually happens, as opposed to the confused and subjective guesswork that's been "philosophy of the mind" for all of prior recorded history.

Computers are comparable to the brain in some functions and studying the issue in that light can be very useful. Be that as it may, I'm telling you that the perspective that you're coming from is only a piece of the puzzle.

I see and understand your perspective quite well. My dad is also a computer programmer and has been working in the field since the days of the punch cards. I held your very same position until about the age of 12 when I realized its limitations.

My entire exchange with you up until this point has been a struggle to get you to understand the nature of this limitation but you've been very difficult an have made no real effort to even try to understand what I've been saying. You've a bad habit of dismissing arguments before you even comprehend them. This annoys me greatly and my annoyance expresses itself as caustic sarcasm. So If you want to have a meaningful discussion with me, I would suggest you actually engage what is being said instead of simply dismissing.

I going to try to break this down to you in yet another way. If you don't get what I'm trying to tell you this time around I don't know what could help you short of bludgeoning you unconscious with a copy of Webster's Dictionary.

Here goes...

The crux of this issue which you seem to be missing is that what this whole debate comes down to is the fundamental dichotomy of quanta/qualia. The sum of reality is not merely quantitative and one cannot fully understand reality merely in quantitative terms, as you seem to emphatically believe.

When I, or many others here speak of consciousness we are speaking of qualitative experience. No entity can be said to be conscious unless it has qualitative experience.

Again, I'll try to represent the problem in terms you're more familiar with [If you've noticed, I've further refined the terminologies since my last representation. Consider it a courtesy]:

[Note: In my parlance awareness is synonymous with consciousness]

Given:
Y = quanta ['unit(s)' of information]
X = qualia ['hue(s)' of experience]

What I'm describing is:

AMM

[1] Consciousness = X
[2] Thinking= Y(X)

.......

What you're describing is:

PM

[1] Capacity = Y
[2] Computation = n(Y)

You're confusing informational capacity with experiential awareness, and logical computation with conscious thinking.

If that does not clarify my position enough for you you're simply lost and there is nothing more I can do for you.

Now, I'm going to imitate your style of argumentation. The following responses are a direct aping of your hopelessly inane style of reasoning so far:

Against this, all you have is a dogged insistance that human consciousness is special. Special, dammit!

Baseless accusation and, therefore, Irrelevant.

No evidence. You just know that it's so because you know that it's so.

Correct. That is the nature of Axioms

Are these the points on which you are flat-out wrong, or are these new points that you haven't raised yet?

Irrelevant.

Since you are unable to pick a definition and stick to it, it's impossible for me to know what you "really mean" by consciousness.

I'm still waiting for you to give me an adequate definition of a computer. So far you've changed your definition repeatedly.

And since you have completely failed to come up with anything humans attribute to consciousness that is not covered by my explanation, there is no reason for me to consider any alternative explanation, even if a coherent alternative were to be offered, which, thus far, hasn't been the case.

Yes I have. You're just confused.

Mercutio, Darat, Rocketdodger, and many others in this thread understand what I'm talking about.

You've yet to demonstrate that you understand anything you've talked about. You're also wrong.

Beth and Westprog also connect, though not on every point. I suggest the problem is not with me.

Evidence?

Read Hofstadter. He effectively and entertainingly cuts through the smokescreen of the immaterialist philosophers and arrives at the essential meaning of what we call consciousness, and how it works, and how we know this. Dennett too, but I think Hofstadter is a better starting place.

Baseless appeals to authority are not evidence. Irrelevant.

edit: I can see why you choose such a style of argumentation -- its so easy! I didn't even have to carefully read or consider anything you posted because I could just sweep it aside with a single gesture. "Irrelevant!"

 

[Third Eye Open]

The crux of this issue which you seem to be missing is that what this whole debate comes down to is the fundamental dichotomy of quanta/qualia. The sum of reality is not merely quantitative and one cannot fully understand reality merely in quantitative terms, as you seem to emphatically believe.

When I, or many others here speak of consciousness we are speaking of qualitative experience. No entity can be said to be conscious unless is has qualitative experience.

You can't have the qualia without the quanta. If you take away the quanta, the qualia goes away. This leads me to believe that qualitative experience is caused by quantitative experience. It is a side effect of high quantitative experience.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You can't have the qualia without the quanta. If you take away the quanta, the qualia goes away. This leads me to believe that qualitative experience is caused by quantitative experience. It is a side effect of high quantitative experience.

But what are the quanta representing..? What is begin dealt with here is a dialectical relation. The situation is more subtle than you seem to realize.

Think about what I've said a little longer and 'look' at the thought from both sides. You'll see that one is not more fundamental than the other

 

[PixyMisa]

The crux of this issue which you seem to be missing is that what this whole debate comes down to is the fundamental dichotomy of quanta/qualia.

Qualia don't exist. The definition of the term - like HPC - is incoherent.

The sum of reality is not merely quantitative

Wrong.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Qualia don't exist. The definition of the term - like HPC - is incoherent.


Wrong.

You've just failed the test.

You've proven to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you're incapable of having any reasoned discussion. You are a hopelessly dimwitted, dogmatic fool and I don't know whether I should regard you with pity or disgust. Meaningful human discourse is clearly beyond your capacity and I hope, for your sake, that the handicap you've exhibited here does not extend into your personal life.

PixyMisa, this 'conversation' is over.

 

[Third Eye Open]

But what are the quanta representing..? What is begin dealt with here is a dialectical relation. The situation is more subtle than you seem to realize.

Think about what I've said a little longer and 'look' at the thought from both sides. You'll see that one is not more fundamental than the other

I don't understand what you are asking. Maybe I have the terms wrong.

Quantitative experience, I thought, was something like "I see an orange. There is one orange there." And Qualitative would be any feelings or memories associated with oranges that you might have.

So the quanta represent the actual observation, and the qualia is any memories of experiences or feelings related to the object.

If the above is correct, then qualia is just another layer on top of quanta. Perhaps an emergent property of having lots of memories and associations with different objects and sensations.

Then again, I usually have a hell of a time trying to figure out what you people are rambling on about.


ETA: 'You people' being philosophers.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't understand what you are asking. Maybe I have the terms wrong.

Quantitative experience, I thought, was something like "I see an orange. There is one orange there." And Qualitative would be any feelings or memories associated with oranges that you might have.

So the quanta represent the actual observation, and the qualia is any memories of experiences or feelings related to the object.

Right now I'm reading a book by Seth Loyd and he mentions that he tends to open his lectures by asking his class "What is information?" Almost always no one raises their hand. The thing is no one really knows how to define the concept of 'information'; we just use it.

Terms we use all the time and take for granted can be really hard to define. The only way to say what something is is by relating it in terms of something else, and so on. So don't feel too bad if the concepts seem rather slippery; its just the nature of language.

Think of it this way:

-the aspect of 'qualia' would be something like the color red or the emotions we might associate with red, or the significance we place on red [as in "red is the color of desire"]

-the aspect of 'quanta' would be the numerical or statistical description of the word "red", or the frequency of the wavelength of light that we experience as "red", etc.

..........

Qualia are qualities.

vs.

Quanta are quantities.

If the above is correct, then qualia is just another layer on top of quanta. Perhaps an emergent property of having lots of memories and associations with different objects and sensations.

Well not quite. The relationship between the two is kinda like the ones between 'up'/'down', 'back'/'front', or 'inside'/'outside'. They are dialectical relations, meaning that neither of the two aspects being considered can exist without the other-- they're like two sides of the same coin.

Then again, I usually have a hell of a time trying to figure out what you people are rambling on about.


ETA: 'You people' being philosophers.

Its okay.

I know from the outside a lot of whats being discussed here sounds pretty weird and doesn't seem to make much sense but Philosophy is just like any other discipline; I think any one can learn it.

Try not to let this discussion intimidate and confuse you. If someone uses a term you're not familiar with check an online dictionary or google it. Once you get the gist of whats being discussed you'll be able to jump right in

 

[PixyMisa]

You've just failed the test.

You've proven to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you're incapable of having any reasoned discussion. You are a hopelessly dimwitted, dogmatic fool and I don't know whether I should regard you with pity or disgust. Meaningful human discourse is clearly beyond your capacity and I hope, for your sake, that the handicap you've exhibited here does not extend into your personal life.

PixyMisa, this 'conversation' is over.

You're free to indicate where I am actually wrong.

You can start any time. I'm nothing if not patient.

I do notice that you keep bringing up quantum mechanics, as though it were a counter-argument. The problem with this is that quantum mechanics is quantum. It tells us that matter, energy, force - and even, for all possible observations, space and time themselves - are quantized. You can't get more quantitative than that.

So the qualitative - not qualia, the very concept of qualia being incoherent, but the qualitative - reduces in our descriptions to theorems and numbers, and in the material world, to numbers alone. (Theorems are reducible to numbers in any case.)

If you choose your units right, most of the time it reduces to integers.

I don't deny subjective, qualitative experience. I just point out that subjective, qualitative experience is a perfectly ordinary objective, quantitative process, because everything is.